Twitter reaffirms users’ right to free speech

This editorial appeared in the St. Loius Post Dispatch

Twitter’s most bellicose presidential user often tweets taunts and accusations. But when someone else does it, they’re out of line.

A “rogue” government account that criticizes President Donald Trump’s policies anonymously was in danger last week of being unmasked after the Department of Homeland Security issued a summons demanding the social media company turn over its users’ identities. The government withdrew the demand a day after Twitter sued.

It was obvious the government had no legal grounds to make the demand. Even one top Trump aide with his own Twitter scandal, Dan Scavino, argues that federal employees have a right to free speech on their own time, using their own accounts and equipment.

Since Trump’s inauguration, dozens of Twitter accounts have sprung up claiming to be run by current and former federal employees. Users posting to @ALT — uscis, the account targeted by the DHS summons, have critiqued the government’s immigration policies.

DHS tried to legally justify the summons by invoking an obscure federal law that allows it to obtain documents related to importations of merchandise. But as Twitter’s lawyers pointed out in their suit, this case “plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the importation of merchandise.”

Federal employees supposedly running the @ALT — uscis account have every right to engage in this form of political activity. Just ask Scavino, the president’s social media director, who tweeted on April 1 encouraging the “#TrumpTrain” to oust a GOP member who opposed the Republican health care bill.

Scavino was accused of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using taxpayer facilities, equipment or work time to engage in political activity. But as the White House was quick to point out in Scavino’s defence, the law also notes that employees are free to do as they please outside the office.

The Trump administration’s demand that Twitter expose and endanger its critics was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.

A summons as outrageous as that deserved its quick demise.